Zack Bass wrote: > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It would be interesting to see if we agree >> which of her arguments are mistaken. >> >> > > One thing she missed, and this is not actually a mistake so much as a > missed opportunity, is that she could have pointed out although that > his "Covenant Of Unanimous Consent" Community is "NAP-libertarian" in > the sense that no one Initiates Force (her protestations about > children being born there etc, are not compelling), it is certainly > not Free. She did, fortunately, eventually point out that one holdout > could clog the system up forever, since any "Covenant Of Unanimous > Consent" implies that everyone has Veto Power. But she shouldn't > argue it; the existence of such a hellhole harms no one outside, and > anyone remains inside it is his choice, and everyone could leave and > the whole human race could live elsewhere and the Covenant could then > be considered defunct and I suppose the Property could be sold WITHOUT > the onerous restrictions. It is possible that one holdout could end > up with the whole place to himself for eternity, but I can live with > that. The Owners of the Property chose to saddle themselves with Deed > Restrictions, and that is their right. > (She also misses when she thinks it has to be some sort of Commune > with no Individual Ownership of Land - seemingly unaware of Deed > Restrictions and CCR's and HomeOwners Associations. All HomeOwners > Associations I have heard of set up some kind of non-Unanimous Voting > system, which of course attracts the worst meddling busybodies; but a > Unanimous one could be set up.) > Well dang; you seem to have covered the major issues that came to mind while reading the essay you first pointed to. > > > She misses a bit on Slavery. It is entirely possible (and likely, I > submit) that some people would, for perceived Value, submit to > Consensual Slavery for the rest of their lives. There is nothing > unlibertarian about that. > > Example: > Jane has five children, all of whom have a dreadful genetic disorder > for which Medical Science has just discovered a marvelous - and > marvelously expensive - cure. > Kevin is desirous of having a sex slave. He draws up a Contract > whereby Jane can have certain assurances but will be his Slave from > the minute she signs the Contract. The Contract specifies that John > will provide a certain amount of money in a Trust Fund for the medical > care of her children. > > You own your body. Whatever you own, you can Trade - permanently. > That is part of the meaning of Ownership. > You'd be surprised how often I see alleged libertarians deny that you > can sell your body into Slavery or the Body Banks. A couple days ago > I actually saw someone write that you cannot sell "yourself" BECAUSE > you own "yourself". BeeZarre! > > Part of their confusion arises from the vague and ambiguously-used > word "yourself". No, sorry, you own your BODY but you do not own > YOURSELF. The relationship between You and Yourself is IDENTITY, not > OWNERSHIP. > As Brother Dave Gardner said, "They told me if I keep smoking I'll > hurt myself. Nah... I might screw up my BODY, but there ain't no way > I'm gonna hurt my SELF! As much as I might enjoy having a sex slave (oh, be still my fantasies!), I see a moral issue and two probably legal issues.
The moral issue issue arises directly from human nature: we are notoriously fickle. No matter how enthusiastically I declare my love and my eternal devotion, despite my fervent passion and intent, that emotion and commitment may wither and wane. More prosaically, my contracted sex-slave may come to feel intolerably harmed by my attentions. Now personally I wouldn't care to demand she continue to 'perform' should that happen. Though some might. Which brings up the next issue: "specific performance." As I understand it, and I'm no lawyer, even today no valid contract may demand that a contract be completed just as stated. If the contract fails to specify a penalty for non-performance, a judge or jury may (or may not) specify compensatory damages. Even if the contract does specify a penalty, a judge or jury may set that penalty aside if it is deemed unreasonable. (If anyone knows something to the contrary, please correct me.) The other legalistic issue is: even in a libertarian society with libertarian adjudication of issues, who among us will reliably enforce such a contract? General thoughts. Historically, we have a massive amount of material to draw upon which should and will illuminate libertarian jurisprudence. (Oh, come the day.) Heart and core libertarians are just not that big on controlling others; that may be why we produce so few competent politicians. It's just not us. Libertarians are simply not keen to construct a society which would empower predators; rather, we seek to diminish or completely eliminate the opportunity for one person to gain advantage specifically by disadvantaging another. This is where the sex-slave scenario falters -- if (and only if) there is no equitable bail-out clause. Dom/Sub games are fine, it would seem to me, only so long as they begin as and remain consensual acts. A person who continues the game beyond the point where consent is withdrawn becomes a predator (and subject to restraint). A person's body is not yet _alienable_ property. (At least so far as current technology permits. Perhaps after uploading is achievable it will become so.) Contractual non-performance penalties now do and should involve only alienable property. (Bodies not included.) With regard to your scenario, perhaps Kevin should offer to loan Jane the money she needs at an acceptable rate of interest. Note drawn, signed, witnessed. Kevin offers Jane the sex-slave contract, with bonuses each year for satisfactory performance sufficient to clear the accrued interest on her note and, optionally, some portion of the principal. If she bails out, you hold the balance of her note which she is then free to repay by other means -- even if by seeking a preferable 'master'. As much as we may be fond of contracts, no libertarian society is likely to ever require 'specific performance' or to endorse and enforce 'slavery' as we think of it. Come to think of it, I don't believe a society which did endorse and enforce slavery would be libertarian in any meaningful sense of the word. G.
